Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Paul Drucker

PA State Representative 157 Race – Candidate Question #4 and Response

October 11, 2010
34 Comments

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the Pennsylvania State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #4: Looking past the 2011 state budget, what are your recommendations to close future budget gaps and still meet the needs of the residents? Until the national economy improves, where do you propose making cuts in future state budgets?

Paul Drucker’s Response

I look at the state budget the same way I look at my family budget. It’s a matter of setting priorities and making difficult decisions.

While the 2010-2011 budget included some very painful cuts, I felt it was important to pass a responsible, balanced and timely budget. I will continue to feel the same way as long as the voters of the 157th district send me back to Harrisburg.

While the volatility of the economic climate makes future revenue estimates unreliable, there is no doubt that some very difficult decisions remain ahead of us. It is my hope that we can put aside partisanship and work together to produce a budget that is in the best interests of our constituents.

PA State House 157 Race — No further comments accepted for candidate question #3!

October 7, 2010
4 Comments

No further comments will be accepted in response to candidate question #3.

In August, when I approached State House 157 candidates about a candidate forum, I envisioned a much different outcome than has evolved. I designed thoughtful, engaging questions that I thought would be representative of important issues to this community. I stated that I would not edit the candidate’s responses, and as moderator, I would not weigh in with my opinion. Presumably seeing no value in this process, candidate Warren Kampf chose not to participate. However, incumbent candidate Paul Drucker returned his responses to my questions. At the time, I questioned whether I should go forward with the Candidate Question and Response forum with Paul’s responses (without Kampf’s participation). Ultimately, I moved ahead with the forum, deciding that Paul Drucker should not be penalized because Warren Kampf declined to participate.

I now recognize that my vision for this candidate forum was naïve. Rather than tolerant, respectful dialogue that discussed the questions and candidate response, I had the task of reading and uploading some of the most negative partisan, personal attacks than I could have imagined. Many comments were not on topic and some remarks lacked civility and respect. It is my opinion that the partisan, negative remarks were evenly distributed between both sides.

Having a strong opinion (from personal experience) on political misinformation and campaign negativity, I have chosen to accept no further comments on candidate question #3. I view negative campaign remarks in a negative light. These comments do not focus on substantive issues or policies but rather tend to focus on personality. This type of negative approach may motivate the base of support of each of the candidates but I think it could also alienate centrist and undecided voters from participating on Election Day – and possibly reduce the low voter turnout even lower.

On Monday, October 11, I will post candidate question #4 and will accept comments. If the comments remain on the question’s topic, I will continue to accept comments until the following Monday.

Thank you.

PA State Representative 157 Race – Candidate Question #3 and Response

October 4, 2010
79 Comments

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the Pennsylvania State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #3: There is evidence of the large and growing gap between infrastructure needs and the resources available in Pennsylvania. How do you propose paying for transportation improvements?

Paul Drucker’s Response

The needs of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) have been growing from year to year. There are now 12000 structurally deficient roads and bridges throughout the commonwealth. There is simply not enough money in the budget to repair them all, let alone to break ground on new projects.

I have met with members of the house and senate transportation committees, transportation industry leaders, the chambers of commerce, commissions and boards created to address the transportation needs and constituents. The one thing everyone agrees upon is that something must be done.

I propose that we begin to explore new revenue sources not only for our roads, but also for new light-rail systems and other mass transportation needs. With an additional $3.5billion needed per year merely to keep up with infrastructure maintenance, there are some difficult decisions ahead of us.

I know there is some talk of imposing tolls on certain roads and that this idea is being studied. There are additional potential sources that the Governor has suggested be utilized for revenue, such as closing tax loopholes for oil companies and creating public private partnerships. While these ideas seem worth exploring, I’ll want to make sure they are fair, reasonable and that all impacts are fully evaluated and addressed.

We should also consider dedicating some portion of a tax on the Marcellus shale natural gas extraction to fund our transportation needs. Pennsylvania has the second largest reserve of natural gas in the United States. However, of the top 15 energy-producing states, Pennsylvania is the only state that does not have a severance tax. Such a tax, on the billion dollar companies making huge profits off our resources, would begin to fill the revenue gap.

Quick Response from Township Manager & Public Works . . . Political Campaign Signs Removed from Township Park

September 28, 2010
13 Comments

I received a response from township manager, Mimi Gleason thanking me for me email and explaining that the township would take care of the removal of the political campaign signs from Swedesford Road Open Space Park. Within minutes of receiving the email, a public works truck and two township workers arrived at the park. A township worker stood on the top of a tall ladder and a garden rake and his long reach were required to remove the signs. Good news . . . quick response from the township and the political campaign signs are down . . . bad news is that is that it required township time and money for the removal.

I’m sure that township residents don’t want their taxpayer dollars spent this way; I ask that political candidates instruct their campaign volunteers not to use our township parks for political signage. Thank you Mimi and Steve Norcini for your quick response!

What’s the Policy on Political Campaign Signs in Tredyffrin Township Parks? And What About Nailing Signs to Township Trees?

September 28, 2010
14 Comments

We live across from the Swedesford Road Open Space Park. During the last 24 hours someone either used a ladder or climbed up a township park tree and nailed 3 political campaign signs into one of the trees. We have lived here for 26 years and there has never been signs nailed on these trees. If the trees were on private property and the individual had permission, I guess it would be OK. Although I still would question the damage it may do to the tree. But the point is the tree with the signs is on township open space property.

During the political campaign season, you may see signs along Swedesford Road, particularly on private property or along the sides of the road but never on the park property. I sent an email to the Board of Supervisors asking what the policy was concerning political campaign signs in our township parks but have not yet had a response. If over zealous campaign workers had planted the typical metal campaign signs, you could simply remove them if the signs were in an inappropriate place. But these signs are at least 10 ft. up the tree and would require a ladder for installation or removal.

I do not think political campaign signs should be nailed to trees in township parks. On my email to the supervisors from my husband and I, I copied the township manager, head of public works Steve Norcini and township solicitor Tom Hogan. I asked the policy and asked for the removal of the signs. I do not think the signs should be removed at taxpayers expense nor should it be the responsibility of the township’s public works staff to climb the tree and remove the signs . . . rather, I would hope that the political campaign responsible would remove the signs.

I have not taken a trip around to visit other township parks but I am hopeful there have been no other defacing of township property.

PA State Representative 157 Race . . . Candidate Question #2 and Response

September 27, 2010
79 Comments

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the Pennsylvania State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #2: How do you propose to encourage job growth in the Commonwealth and specifically in your district?

Paul Drucker’s Response:

The length and depth of this economic downturn is astounding. I think a great deal about my friends, neighbors and constituents who are unemployed or struggling to keep their businesses afloat—and I know that we have to do a better job of fostering a climate of economic growth in Pennsylvania.

While I am proud of some of the economic development projects I helped bring to the district, like the $1 million grant to the Paoli train station that will produce 5,000 construction jobs and 2,000 permanent jobs, I also know we need fundamental changes to Pennsylvania’s business climate.

First, we need to invest in a modern day infrastructure that includes new roads and bridges, better rail access and high-speed internet in rural areas. Next, we need to ensure Pennsylvania students have the best education in America. Finally, we need to help our small businesses grow and expand with a fair tax burden and access to low-interest grants and loans for new equipment and technology.

Castle Doctrine – House Bill 40 . . . Discharge Petition Vote Tomorrow in Harrisburg

September 26, 2010
Comments

I was troubled to hear of the Seton Hall University, E. Orange, New Jersey shooting last night. Having been denied access to the private college party, the gunman later returned and began shooting, killing one student and injuring 4 others. The gunman remains at large.

For those that regularly follow Community Matters, you are aware of my somewhat naive views on local gun ownership and support for gun control legislation. So you may find the following an interesting email that I received today from Daniel Pehrson, the Founder & President Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association concerning the discharge petition filed for House Bill 40, Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine bill. In order to get the bill to the House floor for consideration, this petition must be approved.

House Bill 40, sponsored by State Rep Scott Perry (R-92), would, “ permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. HB 40 would also protect individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attacker’s family when force is used.”

Important Castle Doctrine Vote Monday! We need your help to break through anti-gun tricks and get a vote on House Bill 40

Over the past year gun owners in Pennsylvania have made great strides in getting Castle Doctrine (House Bill 40), past all the anti-gun roadblocks placed in our way, and believe me, they’ve tried every trick in the book. On Monday, September 27, there will be a pivotal vote on a discharge petition, which would put a stop to all the dirty tricks from anti-gun politicians, and get us one step closer to an actual vote on the House floor. The Castle Doctrine bill that has wide bi-partisan support, and should easily pass if we can get this discharge petition moving H.B.40 forward.

Because of this we need you to contact your state representative and politely let them know you expect them to support the discharge petition and floor vote for H.B.40.

Your action on this matter is urgently necessary for us to pass these much needed reforms. Reforms that would protect law-abiding gun owners, like yourself, from prosecution and lawsuits should you ever be forced to defend yourself inside, or outside of your home.

PA State House Representative 157 Race . . . Candidate Question #1 and Response

September 20, 2010
14 Comments

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #1: How is the Commonwealth going to help the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District’s ballooning pension obligations?

Paul Drucker’s Response:

It is important to note that there is no silver bullet to fix the pension obligations of Tredyffrin-Easttown or any of the other school districts in the 157th district. The situation in which we currently find ourselves is a cumulative effort that has been in development over the past 11 years of irresponsible handling of the pension system, combined with the stock market collapse of 2008.

Eleven years ago the rules were changed concerning vesting, multiplier rates, lump sum payouts, actuarial analysis and other matters. As a result, the Commonwealth and the respective school districts find themselves with millions of dollars of unfunded liabilities and are facing a potential spike in the payments due in the immediate future in the billions of dollars.

There are some acts the legislature can take to begin fixing this problem. This session, the House passed a pension reform bill that relieves many of these problems. By reducing the multiplier used to calculate benefits, eliminating the lump-sum payout employees receive and raising the retirement age, we addressed this crisis in a responsible, bi-partisan manner. 194 members of the House voted in favor of the bill (although, surprisingly, my opponent has stated that he opposes it). While the Senate has not yet taken action, I strongly encourage them to do so.

PA State House Representative 157 Race . . . Candidate Questions & Responses

September 20, 2010
46 Comments

Back in August, I approached the two State House 157 candidates, Paul Drucker and Warren Kampf in regards to a ‘Candidate Question & Response’ forum. Recognizing that Community Matters has a regular following of interested concerned residents, I sent a joint email to both candidates asking to meet with them [together] to explain my idea. Below is an excerpt from that email of August 23, 2010:

“Warren & Paul –

As candidates in the PA State House race, I would like to meet with you to discuss an opportunity that would benefit you both. . .

I have come up with a list of six questions that I feel are important issues to our community. You will be given the questions at our meeting and are asked to return your responses to all six questions to me by September 17. That will give you 3+ weeks to answer the questions and the word count is to be limited to 300 words per response. Each Monday, starting September 20, I will post one of the questions with each of your responses. The questions will be posted for 6 week, ending on Monday, October 25. I will not edit your responses nor will they be shared with anyone prior to posting on Community Matters each week. You will not know the order that the questions will be posted, and to be fair, I will change whose response is first each week.

My proposal offers an opportunity for voters to better understand your views on important campaign issues. Your participation in this process will guarantee a larger audience hears your views. Because I am doing this for the community, I will remain neutral; the questions and your responses will be posted each week and the readers will be encouraged to comment. I will serve as moderator and will not weigh in personally. . .”

Neither candidate would see the questions before deciding if they would participate. I did not want their willingness to participate to be predicated on the specific questions. Drucker responded, stating that he would participate. I asked him if he was willing to answers the questions, even if Kampf declined, and his response remained yes. On behalf of Warren Kampf, his campaign coordinator Michael D’Amicantonio replied via email, declining to participate. Here’s an excerpt from the email –

” . . . We have accepted an invitation from the Phoenixville Chamber of Commerce to participate in their candidate forum, and we have already reached out to the League of Women Voters to take part in their traditional and well-respected debate. . . ”

For the record, I can confirm no evidence of a Phoenixville Chamber of Commerce candidate forum and no evidence of a scheduled League of Women Voters debate.

The upcoming November election is important to all of us. We do not always understand candidate’s views on specific issues; it was my intent to provide the candidates a greater audience through Community Matters. I believe that my candidate questions are reflective of the resident’s interests. Unfortunately, as I stated Warren Kampf will not be participating but I did receive Paul Drucker’s responses on Friday, September 17 as requested. Shortly, I will post the first question and his written response. As detailed in my email to the candidates, this process will continue for the next 6 weeks, ending the week before the election.

Beyond Campaign Rhetoric, Can Candidates Offer Solutions?

August 28, 2010
Comments

It does not matter whether it is Tredyffrin Township, Chester County, the Commonwealth or the entire country, aside from the overall economy, the discussion quickly turns to jobs . . . where are they . . . help in finding one, . . . and how to bring them to our community.

With barely 60 days until the November election, we are hearing much political rhetoric from candidates about the job situation. Regardless of party affiliation, all candidates understand that voters are desperate to find jobs. Beyond using the right buzzwords as they stump, how many of the politicians are citing specific job creation plans. Americans want to believe in the politician’s promises but we need reason to believe. Candidates need to offer the unemployed single mother of three some hope in finding a job. Candidates need to provide incentives for the struggling small business owner to keep his door open. Candidates need to explain how to rebuild the small town whose major employer went bankrupt. I want candidates that offer solutions.

This past week, Pennsylvania District 6th congressional candidate Manan Trivedi presented his personal formula for creating jobs. Trivedi’s job plan contained the following points — (1) tax incentives to small business owners; (2) investing in infrastructure; (3) government crackdown on companies who hire illegal immigrants; (4) elimination of tax breaks to companies that ship jobs to foreign countries; and (5) investment by government in clean energy that would stimulate job growth.

Do we believe that Trivedi’s plan can translate to creating and sustaining jobs? Does Jim Gerlach’s campaign offer a similar job plan? Most importantly, how will Tredyffrin Township directly benefit? Do our State House candidates Paul Drucker and Warren Kampf have a job creation plan to help us?

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme